court. we are the only people who materially cover the supreme court in any way, even the thin nestest way the supreme court refuses to recognize and we don't have a press credential at the court. the court always followed a rule that says if you have a senate press credential that you will be credentialed by the supreme court and we got a senate press credential earlier this year and supplied our, then applied to the, the court's press office and at which point the court announced it was reviewing its credentialing practices. and i think genuinely. the court is an institution that is very stayed. its entire premise things shouldn't change very much. it isn't embracing technology because the company expects them to be exceptionally stable. as the law, the law is very ossified and we are a puzzle that the court hasn't quite been able to figure out soft that is an interesting thing. that we are thus far unable to get credentialed by the court itself. >> explain that. give us limits. give us th

court.y or may not be true. but each of the revisions to military commissions, everything that has made them more closely resemble civilian courts or courts marshall makes it that much harder to convict the defendants. which toik make it possible to convict the defendants without affording them the kinds of procedure protection that make a conviction harder to get in civilian court. so when you get to a point where a military commission is, say, 93 brnt is fair as a u.s. court or what have you, then it does raise the question of, well, what is the point the court-martial or a federal court in the procedures what is the benefit to the united in establishing a separate expwrution is system with its own rules where the ultimate legitimacy of the conclusions remains in question. they haven't been blessed or rejected by the civilian court system and the perhaps the most point they asked the military judge in guantanamo to rule that or declare that the constitution of the united states applies to

adjust to life on the supreme court. his remarks came at the federalist society's national lawyers convention in washington, d.c. [applause] >> thank you, david. good evening, everyone. it is my great honor and pleasure to introduce our distinguished guest this evening. although much of what i might say by way of introduction is no doubt familiar to all of you. justice clarence thomas has served with great distinction on the united states supreme court for more than two decades now. he has been a friend of the federalist society for so long that most of you in this room already know him very well. [applause] but i think it is right for us to recall the extraordinary path that he traveled to reach our nation's highest court. not only for what it tells us about him, but for what it tells us about our country. as justice thomas himself put it in his remarkable memoir, "my grandfather's son," "i have never doubted the greatness of a country in which a person like me could travel all the way from georgia to our nation's capit

is that this court is a very coastal and urban and elite law school court. you know, a tremendous number of the life years of the justices on the court have been spent on the acela line of amtrak. it goes from boston to new york to d.c.. it's not there, maybe there is a little bit of west coast. but there's not a lot in between. the chief justice grew up in indiana. justice thomas grew up in georgia. but they spent most of their professional lives in washington, d.c. the rest of us are pretty eastern or californian. all of us have gone to the same two law schools basically. it is just one of these weird flukey things that all of us are graduates of harvard nel, -- harvard or yale, except for justice ginsburg who spent one year at columbia. that seems kind of crazy to me. it is not a good thing. i guess i would say this. it is not a good thing for me other than that the cases would come out differently if it were more diverse. diversity is good because we are an important institution. there are nine of us stop -- nine of us. when a nine person institution loo

inside the court. things have changed a lot in the way the court operates, but i have been paying attention to the supreme court basically for my entire professional career. host: you say things have changed. the 2012-2013 term of the supreme court -- how demonstrated is the balance between law and politics? guest: i actually think the dates of decisions begin to blur and you have been studying the court as long as i have, but obviously the decision in the affordable care act or obamacare case was a central feature of the court's most recent decisions, and there the record the court divided oddly in a many issued case, ultimately upholding the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but really structuring it in a way that contributes to some of the problems we have been seeing as it is coming into force. the five justices held the constitution did not allow congress to enact a statute under its power to regulate interstate commerce, but five justices did say that congress had the power to do this

i wanted signature decisions of the robert court. the court under john robert, jr. and these four cases will always be associated with the robert court. and i wanted good back stories. you will read about a seattle mother who called herself a mama bear before sarah palin coined the term. her effort was to get her daughter into an over-subscribed high school in seattle. she found the school district was using race as one of the number of tie breakers she filled a lawsuit and challenged it. it went all the way to the supreme court. and i found along the way, and didn't start with this in mind, these four cases had something else in common: they had very smart conservative or libitarian lawyers behind them. you would call them agenda cases in some ways. they were issues the lawyers or organizations backing them wanted to get to the supreme court for a final decision. and they had their eye on an increasingly conservative and hoping to have a sympathetic supreme court. i wanted it to be a book that is a good read and not a heavy legal book. that is not what i wanted to

court.> one of the ntis agents who objected strenuously and saw this in large share because they thought it would interfere with criminal prosecutions, he stressed that there are no such things as the secrets, but only delayed disclosures. so sooner or later things come out and this includes things that the government never intended to be released. i don't think the proceedings are fair. one thing is that you can see it and it's hard to see. although one change is that you actually can go and see this at fort meade, maryland. so to be fair, it is possible if you go there and they are not recording. they are broadcasting. [inaudible question] >> yes, there have been about -- [inaudible question] >> he doesn't know he doesn't understand the motivations. >> as it happens, the proceedings that take place in the security courtroom, one is an audio feed that goes to a pressroom that is delayed by 40 seconds. there is also an audience gallery for some victims family people and some observers say it

is that this court is a very coastal and urban and elite law school court. you know, a tremendous number of ife years of the justices on the court have been spent on the sellout line of amtrak. -- acela line of amtrak. t goes from boston to new york to d.c.. it's not there, maybe there is a little bit of west coast. but there's not a lot in between. a few justices grew up in indiana. justice thomas griffin georgia. -- grew up in georgia. but they spent most of their professional lives in washington, d.c.. the rest of us are pretty eastern or california. all of us have gone to the same two law schools basically. it is just one of these weird flukey things that all of us are graduates of harvard nel, -- harvard or yale, except for justice ginsburg who spent one year at columbia. that is crazy to me. it is not a good thing. i would say this, it is not a good thing for me other than that the cases would come out differently if it were more diverse. diversity is good because we are an important institution. there are nine of us stop -- nine of us. when a nine per

no, the court doesn't have that power. how can the court do that, why did the court do that? well, the court did that because it could. not because it could in the sense it had the constitutional power to do it but because the court as an exercise of raw political power chose to do so and did do so. this was a tragic day in american history. a day that we should not soon forget. and a day that we should do all in our power to remedy. this decision was wrong, it was unconscious shabl -- uncon shunnable. as a matter of jurisprudence it was unforgivable. the court then went on to address the challenge related to congress' power to compel the states to expand their medicaid programs. now, medicaid as we all know is a program that is partially funded by the federal government but administered and partially funded by the states. in the affordable care act congress directed the states whether the states were so inclined or not to expand their medicare program -- medicaid perhaps. it gave them no choice but to expand them and to expand them to a very significant degree. to expand the

earlier this year she holds her laptop cases in the high court on the supreme court what you said was her right to die. a doctor told her that she passed away peacefully at home. just over a year ago mary fleming toast three judges of the high court he had come to ask them for help to die a plan to steal her voice. in a television documentary. she explains why i have the right choice. i didn't like the joys of being the big day i think. which is not good not great it is. did i the arms of my time and cold sixty nine year olds who was in the final stages of most sclerosis said she had suffered for twenty four years and was terminally ill to tell the high court when she could no longer bear the pain and indignity of dating knife. she wants to choose her time to die that was physically unable to end her life she said the criminal an old barn on assisted suicide prevent her from doing what an able bodied person was free to do she did not quantity for family or partner with the legacy of a criminal conviction if they helped her so she needed the courts to overturn the ban. the judges of th

about this pecial court? despite the fact you decide hese controversial questions, the supreme court of the united states is the most respected nstitution in our government and has been for a long time. tell us about why that is. >> i would add that it is respected highst court in the world. one reason is that we have been in passing on laws an executive actions for constitution constitutionality. in most countries in the world supremacy was deeply rooted, and it was not world war ii that inrts abroad began to engage judicial review for constitutionality. so, just to take a few notable cas when president truman that the country was at war in korea and could not risk strike in the steel plants, so the steel mills and the was challenged and court held, mr. president, you o not have that authority acting alone. you need congress to be with you. so, what did truman do? the next day he turned the mills owners.the that is remarkable to many courts in the world. we have an excellent police court, but we have we do n

>> didn't go to court. >> what you have to go to court for?probation. >> how long have you been on probation? >> i've been on probation for, like, five years. i'm not really too worried about these court dates. i don't know. now that i'm 18, legally they can't hold me no more than 120 days. as soon as i get this legal trouble out of the way, i know i'm going to have a good life. i have all the essential tools and capabilities to carry me anywhere i want to go. but it's just me finding a way to use them. >> monday morning means court is back in session. those detained downstairs in the detention center are shackled for their own safety and the safety of those bringing them to the juvenile court wing. >> no talking in the hallway. >> on the judge's docket, today, two very different but equally heavy hearings. the case of two young brothers who have been in detention over and over but still could face years in the juvenile system. and then there's devon who at 18 will stand in the judge's courtroom one last time. if he gets locked up again it wil

do you need the court to help you? you don't need the court's help? >> no. i'm fine. >> do you understand you're on probation? so this kind of looks bad on you. >> complicating ayryana's case are two prior offenses for driving without a license and battery on a classmate. her last day in court came with a warning. >> the probation officer told me if i got into any more trouble i was going to have to go to girls school. so, yeah, i'm real nervous. >> with the threat of girls school still fresh in her mind, ayryana gets ready for another weekend in detention, followed by another day in court and an outcome that could mean months away from home. >> i'm trying not to think about it. this is making me real nervous. i just don't know what's going to happen. usually i got an idea. this time i don't. >>> there's five of you. fighting with one lone person. >> yes. >> and you beat up this victim, right? >> you've been very immature. you're like a kid that don't want to grow up. >>> many of the underlying problems that land kids in detention are the result of defiant t

and then he failed to come to his court date in july. so he didn't appear in court. his mother did, his counselors did, his probation officer did, but morris was on run away status. >> why didn't you go to court on the 24th? everybody else did. >> i was scared. >> you were scared. did you get a chance to talk to your probation officer prior to going to court? >> my probation officer, he was talking about sending me a place where i didn't know. that's why i didn't go to court. >> the indiana juvenile courts have options other than sending young offenders to juvenile prison. kids can also be placed in a variety of rehabilitation facilities known as placement. for morris, his probation officer was recommending an extended placement in a facility where he can learn to manage his anger problems. >> i can't control my anger. i've been angry all my life. i was here because me and my mom got into it and i punched a hole in the wall. >> but it makes it worse when you don't appear in court. now you present yourself as a flight risk. do you understand that? you just make it wor

court. >> what can change normal terms of obama or anyone else couldn't even get through nominations for regular courts though supreme court. >> the presidential elections do matter. >> hi, i'm jim. my question deals with roberts vote on the health care issue. do you think he was motivated by the fear that the court began to look like a political entity rather than a jurisprudence entity? >> you're welcome to speak to this too. it's probably one of the most common questions we get, isn't it? >> yeah. do i think so? no. i take him at the word. i take him as sincerely trying to grapple with the issues presented in that case. i think he was first inclined to vote with the four conservatives and strike the law down as violating the commerce clause. when they came back and staid means entire law goes, not just the mandate, and not just the provisions of the law that are economically tied to the mandate guaranteed issue and community rating. but we're going take down the entire statute. i think --

he wrote to the supreme court of the united states. >> the supreme court they have cases brought to the court by people who are too poor who are able to pay for their fees. gideon's was a hand written document online prison stationery. you couldn't imagine a simpler more elementary way to get to the highest court in the land. >> why would the supreme court decide to hear the case of a poor man already in prison. because the constitution allows even a poor man to be heard. lightning strikes from the ground up. it may have been sparked by gideon but they were on the court's justice ready to catch it. >> he was the most influential person in the courtroom system of all time. people should not be disadvantaged in getting justice because they are poor. the judge was viable for the constitution. it had the best constitution in the world and if we were tolerant it would be all right. on the morning of march 18th, the decision was announced from the supreme court. they said justice black said i have an announcement the decision and opinion of the court gideon against -- vindication for 20 years

a great question a veterans treatment court is a court monitored court mandated treatment for a veteran who has come into contact with the criminal justice system it's an alternative to incarceration and the success rate is incredible and we're just very excited about the outcomes there about how can only one hundred thirty veterans treatment courts around the country at the moment and they just started in two thousand and eight this is this raises two questions one is you know presumably many veterans particularly those who've been in combat have experiences that. require a somewhat different kind of treatment whether it's a psychological treatment or a criminal justice system treatment then somebody who's never had that experience but on the other hand are we learning things from these veterans courts that should be applied to the civilian courts and so for some people just growing up in parts of america is as traumatizing as as well not necessarily as being in war but you get my point i do get your point and there are a couple good points being made there and i think for. saval there

a great question a veterans treatment court is a court monitored court mandated treatment for a veteran who has come into contact with the criminal justice system it's now turned to incarceration and the success rate is incredible and we're just very excited about the outcomes there about how it's an ugly one hundred thirty veterans treatment courts around the country at the moment and they just started in two thousand and eight this is this raises two questions one is you know presumably many veterans particularly those who've been in combat have experiences that. require a somewhat different kind of treatment whether it's a psychological treatment or a criminal justice system treatment then somebody who's never had that experience but on the other hand are we learning things from these veterans courts that should be applied to the civilian courts and so for some people just growing up in parts of america is as traumatizing as is not necessarily has been in war but you get my point i do get your point and there are a couple good points to be made there and i think for. saval there are

supreme court? for more i'm joined on our new york set here by michael price, counsel for the brennan center's policy for rights. we are giving this to transnational corporations to can't the government have it too? >> well i think this opinion is one in a debate that is going to the supreme court. but already we see that the decision is a bit of an outlier. if you consider the trend that we've been seeing towards nsa reform out of all three branches of government, it does seem to buck that trend a little bit. and as you mentioned there's the decision from judge leon just earlier this month finding that the program was likely unconstitutional, there's also legislation moving through contract that would limit the nsa's ability to collect data in bulk like this and a group of experts appointed by the president did an investigation of this program and determined, also just this month, that it hadn't actually made us any safer and should be stopped. >> so you think this will go to the u.s. supreme court

justiceme court clarence thomas spoke about adjusting to life on the high court. his remarks came at the federalist society's national wars -- national lawyers convention in washington, d.c.. this is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, david. good evening, everyone. it is my great honor and pleasure to introduce our distinguished guest this evening. although much of what i might say by way of introduction is no doubt familiar to all of you. justice clarence thomas has served with great distinction on the united states supreme court for more than two decades now. he has been a friend of the federalist society for so long that most of you in this room already know him very well. [applause] but i think it is right for us to recall the extraordinary path that he traveled to reach our nation's highest court. not for what it tells us about him, but for what it tells us about our country. as justice thomas himself put it in his remarkable memoir, "my granfather's son," "i have never doubted the greatness of a country in which a person like me could travel all the

but the book -- the terror court.n the cover we have a bunch of people dressed as detainees, a news photograph taken from one of the protests that coward in washington regarding this project. but is the book is really not about terrorists. tps. not that much about detainees except as much they are involved in the system that americans have set up. the story that i wanted to tell was about the americans and the american values as expressed to the legal system at the time of crisis and national emergency. what we learned is really bedrock to our view of the law and the legal process. and what is really more disposal depending on the circumstances that we face. the story, you know, to step back for a minute, a couple of years ago attorney general holder now, he was going hold the 9/11 trial in manhattan in the southern district of new york, and the five codefendants would be tried on -- under u.s. code in the federal court house. there was a big political uproar about it. there was very little public and support for what

one day, i showed up in the supreme court. [applause] >> i wish i could give you a better story than that. >> there must have been people you turn to. >> i met her in 1986 and that was the beginning of me going back to things that were most important in my life. and we prayed about everything that happened. ood people who believed in me, like president bush. i did not know president bush when he nominated me. my good friend, ricky silverman, insisted that i think about it. [applause] larry silverman counseled me bout it. at every turn, and it will probably be boring to you all because my life is pretty boring, there were a series of good people who showed up. one of the things that became a priority, if you talk to people who come to new places and they do not have family, you can ask anyone in this room who does not have a structured family, you begin to assemble a family. that was the source of my difficulty with yale. yale had become the only family that i had. at a critical juncture, they abandoned me. that was the big pro

and then i ask this person to go into court and defend them. and this person is juggling so many cases, can't really dedicate the time that they need to do justice to this persons person's case. so i wanted to tell that story in "chasing gideon" and just to focus our nation's attention on that 50 years after the supreme court decision. >> what is the core reason for the system being broken? is it simply a matter of not enough money or is it a matter of there not being enough interest by qualified attorneys to do this kind of work, some kind of combination, something else? >> i think it's a combination of things. there are several systemic realms. there is a culture in the courts where sometimes among public defenders there's a sort of her gbagbo about like how much work can you do without complaining, so the culture of the courts can fuel that especially among judges who have an attitude of move the cases along, clear the docket and let's keep these going, keep the calendar clear. so there is that culture and then there is big financial problem

court. the citizens united organization had abandoned a big challenge to the law in the lower courts. there had no briefing on those issues before the u.s. supreme court. and he basically said this is not the way we do things around here. it will be nidis sent that is not the way we should be doing things. that's why i was told there have an constitutional button than if, you know, the court is about to do something, that might look bad for the court in terms of its constitutional representation. >> not to use the word activist. >> right. okay. they -- they pressed it hard with the chief justice. it's really why -- the justice said to me and a number of them said to me they don't remember if they took a vote on reargument citizens united or whether of it just consensus that it should be reargued. but that is why they said they reargued it in order to give the lawyers in the case more time, an opportunity to brief the two questions that the court presented. it was sort of a little disingenuou

to go to the court? >> yes, i believe we would. >> yet he would have to get court authority to do that. it would only last for a period of time. it would have to be renewed periodically. questar technological limitations. >> there are technological limitations. it would be all metadata, not just e-mail metadata. >> that is correct. it would be limited to the metadata in that regard. >> if i make sure i am understanding the answer, the limitation would be on the metadata. >> it could not be content. fisae latest order of the it excluded certain data as well. >> you have to show that the categories of metadata that you are seeking are relevant to the investigation. you talked about legislation and updating electronic communication, and you inquire about criminal matters, how can the government in -- obtaining probable cause warrant. section 2.15 of the usa patriot act requires government to show relevance to authorize intelligence investigation in order to obtain records. i am not talking about all collect

by the supreme court. we've got the senate credential earlier this year and then applied to the court's press office at which point the court announced it was reviewing the credentialing practices. i think genuinely, the court is an institution that is very staid. its entire premise is that things shouldn't change that much. during the same-sex marriage case, i was gone -- i was not going to wait for them to report it. i was waiting for scotusblog -- so explain the nuts and bolts. >> the courtroom itself is a all caps. there are no electronic vices around. nots are for the most part in the courtroom. they are outside. is the point that the chief justice system at the justice in the has the opinion united states vs, windsor, they start handing out the opinions to the press corps. lyle will get his copy of the opinion and pete will be outside waiting for his copy of the opinion. and will talk to us about what the opinion says. we will be taking that into our live blog to go out to the rest of the world. >> s

at the court. it's one of for the schoolchildren who parade in and out to sea that women are there, definitely part of the courts operations. >> could you describe since you mentioned the oral argument process? i take most people don't know that the court hears about 75 cases a year, in each case, except in unusual situations is allotted one hour for oral arguments. that means each side gets a half an hour. some people think that the lawyers get up and lecture or give a speech as a part of their oral arguments, not like that at all. can you describe what oral arguments like and how much you participate? >> let me just say something about the 75 cases that we here and decide. that the 75 comes from a pile of over 8000, over 8000 petitions for review. and from those we select a very small number your the reason we do that is we see our job is keeping the law of the united states more or less uniform, whether its statutory question or constitutional question. is everybody agrees, if all the lower cour

the supreme court always waits until the circuit courts of appeal address the issue.y be that both courts find the same way, in which case it's unlikely the supreme court will step in. if they both uphold the program, i think it's less likely that the supreme court gets involved. if they disagree or both find that it's unconstitutional, i think the supreme court will almost certainly take the case. but we're talking about a year before it's before the supreme court. these appeals take a while. >> you said courts aren't normally in the habit of overturning something like this. you would expect that the deck might be, say, stacked against the aclu or someone arguing on behalf of privacy? is that correct? >> i think that's right. when you executive branch, here the nsa, invoked national security, that's something most courts of very reluctant to disturb. it's true the judge in washington did say this is orwellian, this is too much, but most courts defer to the executive branch. i would say the odds favor both appellate courts upholding the program, but, you know, we've s

-- uncollegial court was when president -- a president appointed -- to the court. before.ad appointed one jews.erson did not like so much so that he would leave the room. every time there is any justice, we would take a photograph. there is no photograph because that justice refused to stand next to another justice. there were animosities in the court. from time to time. in the current court, it is most collegial. >> it is well-known that you and justice scalia are very good friends and have a wonderful relationship with one another, notwithstanding the fact that his judicial philosophy inured judicial philosophy cannot be -- can be quite distant and you have dissented from his opinions and vice versa. is that true about your relationship with justice scalia? what causes that to be true? i met justice scalia for the first time when he was on the faculty of the university of chicago. i was teaching at columbia. he gave a talk that was about a cursuscase at the d.c. -- circuits. he was severely critical about that. i disagree with the most everything he said, but he

we judge people on how they perform both on the court and off the court. on the field and off the field. that is a value that i think is not just at the heart of america americane heart of sports. >> watch all of the press conference sunday at 10:35 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> if you are a middle or high c-span wants to know what is the most important issue congress should address next year? make a 5-7 minute video for your chance to win $5,000, with $100,000 in total prizes. get more info at student cam.org. now, a look at digital and .nternet privacy this is moderated by rebecca , cofounder of global voices online and runs an hour and 35 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome this afternoon's host, rebecca mackinnon. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. [applause] many people may not realize this, but 95% of people who are out there on the internet using their smartphones and so on can be identified and profiled by just for interactions through their mobile devices. if you post a tweet, check your bank account, send an e-mail, or check

to go to the court? >> yes, i believe we would. >> yet he would have to get court authority to do that. it would only last for a period of time. it would have to be renewed periodically. questar technological limitations. -- >> there are technological limitations. it would be all metadata, not just e-mail metadata. >> that is correct. it would be limited to the metadata in that regard. >> if i make sure i am understanding the answer, the limitation would be on the metadata. >> it could not be content. in the latest order of the fisa court, it excluded certain data as well. >> you have to show that the categories of metadata that you are seeking are relevant to the investigation. >> you talked about legislation and updating electronic communication, and you inquire about criminal matters, how can the government in -- obtaining probable cause warrant. section 2.15 of the usa patriot act requires government to show relevance to authorize intelligence investigation in order to obtain records. i am not talkin

he breezily argued before the court -- he recently argued before the court in two cases. this is a 45 minute event. [applause] >> good morning. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> audio. >> someone will also have to control the microphone. [laughter] >> it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to ask questions of justice ginsberg instead of the other way around. [laughter] i want to thank all of you out there who planted questions with me in the hopes that i would ask those questions, but i probably will not ask any of those questions. [laughter] let's start with the supreme court of the u.s. you and your court handled the most difficult and most controversial questions of our day and of our society involving life, death, voting, property, race, freedom, and campaign contributions -- all of those things. what is so special about this court despite the fact that you decided controversial questions? the supreme court of the u.s. is the most respected institution in our government and has been for a long time. tell us about why that is? >> i would add t

and the lower courts are divided.ne of the functions the supreme court sees for itself, harmonize how the law is enforced and viewed around the country. and so when that is what they call a circuit split, that's a likely case for the supreme court. tom developed a way to analyze the circuit split and to start saying maybe that's th a case tt can come to the supreme court. a lot of big law firms in washington were killed in a scotusblog. they had the people to do it. they had the smarts to do. they didn't do it. so one of the things we have to celebrate here today i think is the incredible spirit of entrepreneurship that kind to have brought to this, and they will never tell you that. but having imitators that have tried to be like scotusblog that have fizzled out in the heat of the sun pretty fast. so it's an enormous the congressman and they make it sound like it was just as easy as making breakfast. but the fact is it's a remarkable accomplishment. it has enormous credibility now. it is read not only by the practiti

the fisa court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court had been established as part of a comprise in the late '70s when people were very upset about nixon spying on political enemy. there was a church committee, frank church ran the important committee where they did a complete exploration of the american history about intelligence area. and they decided it was not permissible for the government to spy on americans without going through the court. but it was all right to spy on the soviet embassy to see what they were up to. it was the cold war. the idea that mens get constitutional protections foreigners don't. the 2001 legislation, and some legislation we've had since then basically said that even though if the government is targeting somebody who is a foreigner. and it's one end of a cfghts, they can pick up whatever the americans are saying at the other end. one thing that the fisa court authorized is in addition to what has been called the meta data. the telephone numbers you call or which you get called not the content. the government can pick up the content of american's e-

we do have a lot of collaborative court's in san francisco of mental health court, drug court. domestic violence court. but san francisco is at the cuff of considering what measures to take in serving individuals who suffer from mental illness and also individuals who suffer from drugs, substance abuse, chronic conditions. >> i would like to introduce john diaz from the san francisco paper, san francisco chronicle. i'm very pleased to introduce him now. john? [ applause ] >> thank you very much, jeff and good morning and welcome to our panel this morning on forced treatment and constitutional rights. can they coexist? i am john diaz, the editorial page editor from the san francisco chronicle and i'm moderating this modern's discussion with our distinguished panel. forced treatment as jeff node is one of the most contentious issues of mental health. as you look at our discussion there are informed and panelled views from both sides. there has been many debates on how to implement lawyer's law which consist of outpatient treatment. it was named after laura wilcox, a mental health

, the supreme court says the fisa court has on 35 different occasions authorized, what this lower court has today. the man at the center of the controversy, edward snowden, a secret program authorized by a secret court when exposed to the light of day found to violate america's rights, the first of many. in the view of edward snowden there will be many court cases like this that will strike down what the nsa, president obama hosing some heavy hitters from the technology world tomorrow including the ceos of apple, netflix and others, what technology problems that has had. the issue with surveillance and the technology involved. remember the judge in the case today cited the almost i don't remember wellan data, some has authorized has been outed and the technology has changed considerably and that's the basis of his ruling now. >> mike viqueria from washington. data without showing any link between the data collected an terrorist threat i suspected that something like this would eventually happen. with t the timing could not be better. >> i want to carefully venture into this. the judge s

ready for court?is way, please. >> hopefully i'll go home and i'll be with my baby. >> right this way. >> i'm just going to explain myself from the beginning to the end. leaving no parts out. because there's two sides to the story. >> this young lady is charged with runaway, right? >> correct. >> have a seat. >> kymyada, you're charged with running away. tell us what happened. >> well, monday me and my boyfriend and my cousin had the baby, and we was out all night. we didn't call nobody. then tuesday i dropped my daughter off at her grandmother's house because i was getting agitated with her. this is not my first time getting agitated. so -- >> agitated with your mother? >> no, my mom had nothing to do with this. it was my daughter. she was sleepy. i was getting cranky. everything. so we was out late. i just needed some me time. away from the baby, away from everything. after that we didn't call nobody or let them know we was okay so, of course, they going to make the report because they didn't know w

supreme court. he's the country leading expert on forensic dna in the court and going tell us what he thinks, at least, the supreme court has been doing with forensic dna. david? [applause] >> so i want to thank professor agreely for allowing me to talk about something i've been and still writing about in trying to figure out. and i keep changing my opinion. so you don't have it believe everything i say. first, i need to find my slides. here we are. i'm going talk this morning about two cases only. although i'll refer to others. that were on the docket and decided by the u.s. supreme court most recently in june for maryland v. king, and an earlier june for williams against illinois. king is a case which arose from alonzo king was arrested for waiving a shotgun at a number of people. the police at booking took his fingers prints, they took his photograph, and they took his dna in the form of two cheek swabs. a few months later, after it was determined through a data base search, that his dna profile,

court. explain that. guest: usually we talk about the chief justice, but the chief justice is not always the leader of the court. brennan, under all warren, was probably the leader of the court in terms of organizing the thinking of the court and writing the most important opinions. a chance if the next appointee is a democratic appointee that justice kagan will emerge as the court's leader, displacing chief justice , leaving a more or less liberal majority against the conservative majority he is leaving. you write in your book that the future of the court will be shaped by not only the nominations that obama and his successors will make, but the competition between roberts and kagan for the intellectual leadership of the court, as each forcefully articulates differing views about the balance between law and politics. when the justices are looking at cases, how much are they taking the long view, the competing balances you are talking about, and how much our cases decided in a vacuum? thet:

court of appeals.ed an emergency application to block the law and now the case is going back again to the appeals court, which is expected to hear arguments next month, which means that for now at least 12 of texas eli sense prod veiders can no longer offer abortions. joining me from texas is one of those provider who is's been forced by the law to turn women away. amy hackstrom miller, president and ceo of whole women's health. nice to have you here this morning. >> thank you, melissa, for your coverage of this issue. >> listen, get us up to date, given all this back and north the courts, what is happening on the ground for you as a provider in texas. >> you know, it's been a very difficult couple of months. there's a number of us that have had to stop providing abortion services in our clin clinics. i've faced layoffs of numerous staff because i was not able to keep the doors open and serve the women who need us. we've had infrastructure issues giving people bus and gas tickets to try to help them ge

comfort individualized. >>> what time we going to court?y probably five or ten minutes. hopefully you'll be there. >> ricky pizano has been in and out of the juvenile justice system his entire teen life. and now he is back in lcjc for running away from the treatment facility he was sent to last time he was here. ricky knows he has reached the end of the line. having recently turned 18, juvenile rehabilitation services are no longer an option. the question is, should he be set free, sent to juvenile prison, or waived to the adult justice system? >> i'm 18. i've got goals set for myself. goals that i was trying to achieve while i was out there. this has just put a big pause on it, and i hope the judge sees that and she lets me get out. >> well, when a person turns 18 there's not a lot of choices for us to make to plug them into services. because everyone's looking, oh, we have this little time to work with them. it's not long enough to effectuate a change. >> whatever i do, i accept the consequences fully. i did it for a reason. that's just i

we have a court that is dedicated to this that reports to the supreme court. we have this legislative committee, the senate intelligence committee and the house committees. so it's hard for me to think of whatever we might do to add to the level of oversight. i think we may make it more efficient and effective, but i don't want anybody to leave this hearing thinking we just kind of leave this question to the nsa. we have built a system in which every branch of government and within those branches of government, in many cases multiple different agencies and in some cases within those agencies and some independent sectors all compete to have a look and make sure the right things are being done. so i'll let you all go. i appreciate what you're doing. i understand that we need to get this right. but i think it would be a mistake to yunilaterally walk away from the realm of big data to protect our national security when we're perfectly comfortable with private companies doing that to make money and to find out more about us so they can market to us better and when

that the court system was taking.and we took a snapshot of over 2500 transactions in 2012. that comes to $23 million. and coming through us the process is that you pay your assurity or your entire bail. going through the bailbonds industry that 10% represents $10 million. >> let me make an announcement that we will take questions from the audience. if you want to ask one, there are cards that you can signal to amy who will hand you one. we would love to hear your questions. mrs. dewitt, it's been a while since you had the podium or the mic. there has been a lot said, i am wondering when you hear this talk about eliminating money bail system. is this something that can realistically happen or were we able to achieve that, there would be a move to reinstate what your organization does? >> let me first off thank you, matt, let me first say i feel like a minority among the panel. but i am not overwhelmed by it. i think we have a little misconception here and what we forget all along, the public, the taxpayers. the bail in

before a secret court, right? >> that's right. the secret surveillance court, known as the fisa court or the fisk, has repeatedly authorized this one secret program going back to the bush administration. that court looks very different than this one. >> in terms of the way that those court proceedings would have been different, what's the difference, i guess procedurally, between this regular u.s. district court ruling today and what would have been argued before the secret court in the past? >> well, both involve article 3 judges, but the way the fisa court works is only the justice department, only the government is allowed to come before the court and make arguments. it all happens in secret, and the court hears the government's point of view, doesn't hear the adversarial point of view, and then rules. and if it rules in favor of the government, there's no one there to appeal. so, it's a very stacked procedure when you're talking about these large programmatic surveillance programs like this call log metadata p